It was good of Asad Rauf to make a game of it by not giving Oram out plumb lbw and then giving Bell out lbw when he hit the ball. He sure did his best to give NZ a chance on a day when they were completely outplayed.

The top three bowlers all did their jobs well and then batsmen three, four and five did theirs. Can't complain at that performance.

And if NZ had anyone better, would they still be playing him?

Well you can if you're me, because I'm never satisfied.

But yes, Englands main three bowlers Anderson, Sidebottom and Broad bowled well, put the ball in the right areas and just as importantly bowled accurately and a fuller length, sometimes just back of a length, which made the difference. Anderson bowled very well as did Broad, Sidebottom in my mind was not at his best, but still bowled well enough.

Where England started to lose the plot was after the initial breakthroughs and Oram and Vettori came together and they had to play their second change bowlers Collingwood, Mascarenhas and Wright and Vettori and Oram started to make hay. They allowed NZ to get 40 or 50 runs too many in my mind and should have bowled them out within the 50 overs. As it happened they still fell about 50 runs short of a defendable score on that pitch.

This is an area that England have had problems with in the past - when they've got sides on the rack and struggling they need to finish them off, but they let Oram and Vettori bat themselves back into the game by taking their foot off the gas.

It made for a more interesting game but I'd like to see England being a lot more ruthless in domninating sides when they have the upper hand.

I still feel Englands fielding and specifically run outs and hitting the stumps is the weakest part of their game and it's something they need to work hard at - NZ are light years ahead of of them in that area - just look at how many run outs NZ have against England compared to the other way round. Some of that's due to Englands poor running between the wickets (something else they need to work on) but a lot of it is down to the Kiwi's far superior fielding abilities.

I felt they batted well enough but no more than that really - it was the experienced middle order that did the business for them as you never really know what you're going to get from Mustard and Cook at the top of the order.

Playing Wright instead of Swann was a mistake in my mind and was one of the reasons NZ got as many runs as they did, they wouldn't have got Swann away quite as easily as Wrights innocuous medium pacers.

Mascarenhas for Bopara was more logical as Mascarenhas is the man in form and Bopara in my mind has been treated appallingly by the England management. Putting him into the Test side before he was ready was a mistake, continuing to play him in the Test side when it was patently obvious he was out of his depth was an even greater mistake and now the poor lads shot of confidence and can't even get it together in the format of the game he is supposed to be good at.

I still don't rate this NZ side with the exception of Vettori and clearly, if you make them set a score they're not as confident as when they're chasing. The key for England now is to beat them by setting a score and then defending it.

You are a hard taskmaster, Scott! That said, you are right in much of what you say. The back up to the front three bowlers wasn't good enough. We can blame Asad Rauf for giving Oram a life but England should have stopped him and Vettori from scoring so easily. I don't like seeing any side without a spin bowler, it removes a threat IMO. Mascarenhas wasn't at his best with the ball but I wouldn't like to see him dropped.

You made two interesting points: one was that England so rarely hit the stumps in the field. I will be slaughtered for saying this but I don't believe that England have a world class fielder. Collingwood may be good but he rarely hits the stumps and cannot compare with Clarke, Ponting, Symonds, Taylor, Gibbs, De Villiers et al. Why is it that Vettori can hit them yet none of ours can? Apart from that inability the England fielding was very good, sharper than it has been.

The second point relates to Ravi Bopara. Why did he play in the Tests in Sri Lanka? It's obvious to all that Shah is closer to being a Test player than he is. His confidence does appear to have been dented somewhat. Let's hope he regains some his natural sparkle back at Chelmsford at the beginning of the new season.

No it wasn't and that was a direct result of going in with a strengthened batting line up. I understand why Moores did it because as I said earlier it was almost the last throw of the dice for him and as it happened the extra batting wasn't required, but it could have back fired, had they not taken those early wickets with their better bowlers.

Was it form or situational? Mascarenhas's cunning and pace variations make him hard to lineup in T20 due to fewer balls being bowled and being mixed up more and a need for the batsman to score off everyone almost which means he has to take chances. Does that mean he may be easier to lineup in the longer short format where the batsman has more time to pick and choose which balls to go for? I rather suspect he was included for his ability to clear the rope down the order like Luke Wright rather than his bowling ability, but that may be doing him a disservice.

I think Collingwood is a world class fielder and I think Bell could be but the problem with Collingwood is that he's best at backward point and that means he isn't going to get that many chances to throw down the stumps. It's the ring fielders that need to do that and they're not doing it anything like often enough.

It would be a shame if Bopara became disenfranchised with the England set up and I think they're both pushing him too early and too quickly and expecting too much too quickly. He does have the potential in my mind to become a very useful short format game allrounder - he has the temperament for it but only if he's allowed to focus on and hone his skills in the format of the game he's best at - ODI and T20. Keep him away from the Test side for the time being and let him develop naturally into the short format game.

Pretty good all in all, though Mustard really needs a score soon. Dimi couldn't live up to the ridiculous expectations - his batting seems more use than his bowling at the moment, as I think Colly is as good on most tracks.

My take:
Captain Colly shows the way

Paul Collingwood's side have rightly been lambasted for a pair of aberrant performances in this ODI series. But it is to his great credit that he led by example in the third game, claiming three wickets and scoring a rapid 70* to put England back on the right track.

Collingwood's pride has palpably been damaged by the first two games. Under his captaincy, the impression that England do not care for one-day cricket has gradually been eroded, as anyone who witnessed the jubilant celebrations upon winning the series in Sri Lanka would conform. Apathy has been a major problem for England in this format; too often, they have been blown away in series that have followed the Tests, with the players all seemingly longing for a return home. That is no longer the case, for Collingwood has made it his mission to make England a respected one-day outfit once more.

His performance today illustrated the good cricketing sense he has come to be associated with. His bowling in this format of the game continues to improve; canny and with plenty of guile, his brand of cutters and slower balls are well-accustomed to Kiwi wickets. With the bat, he was audacious and a little lucky but superb: his 70* from only 50 balls made a nervy run chase into a cakewalk, as he ruthlessly targeted New Zealand's band of medium-pacers after seeing off the brilliant Daniel Vettori.

While they have regained some respectability, it would still represent a major surprise if England produce two more similarly impressive showings. Clearly, they need Phil Mustard to make a significant contribution at the top; breezy cameos are not enough. But, at last, their much-vaunted middle-order lived up to the hype, with Ian Bell playing a fine innings and Kevin Pietersen, though far from his best, making a timely contribution. Collingwood's combativeness evoked the tenacity and skill he displayed in the incredible CB Series win last year. After their thrashings in the first two games, a turnaround England series victory would come close to that for shock value.

__________________
third-umpire.com

you sure are looking for the perfect cricket team aren't ya Scott? if u look at the aussie batting performance today against srilanka, it was very mediocre other than the adam gilchrist century...they were on course for a 280-290 score but got less than 240. its a different case that srilanka capitulated to continue its batting woes against australia. no team is perfect even the number 1 team in the world.
then it comes down to what went wrong for england even though they won...no it wasn't the fact that they let oram and vettori score, yeah professional cricketers know there is bound to be partnerships at some point... ur playing an international side not some weak opposition which crumbles.....it wasn't fielding as the ground was small and ur not stopping too many 2's... maybe they gave away the easy 1's. i thought where england could've lost the match is when pietersen and bell were out in quick succession to vettori and in my opinion this should be a major cause for concern, losing too many wickets to quickly. england need to sort out their problem against spinners and specially vettori who can be lethal and will be probing away in ODI's and the important tests ahead.
giving away those wickets of both set batsmen quickly and at a crucial stage and specially to bring in collingwood who was out of form for me could've been the opportunity NZ needed to seize, its another issue that collingwood played a brilliant knock. they missed bond immensely when england were 4 down, a wicket taking bowler at that stage bowling in tandem with vettori and the match couldve been topsy turvy. NZ need more top class wicket takers in their bowling department, hitchcock in my opinion is like a net bowler, shouldve picked patel. england also missed a trick by picking wright for swann but i guess england wanted to extend their line-up given poor batting form they exhibited last 2 games.

Well I had written that one off but it turned out to be a reasonably entertaining match in the end.

Bell did well to come good at the right time and I thought Colly with his 'I'll show these guys who's boss' attitude was outstanding. Oram and Vettori clearly the players of the day for NZ but all in vain. The worst performer was probably Rauf who had a shocker - a couple of bad calls (which didn't really affect the outcome of the game, bar Bell maybe getting a ton?) which happen to the best of them I suppose, but not being in position as the ball is in play? Not even watching the bowler during the delivery stride? School boy stuff!

Hitchcock needs to go - I've no idea why he was there in the first place - I'd bring in Andre Adams... oh, hang on...

Fulton also struggling - is it too early to throw in a bolter like Redmond? Elliott? or my personal favourite: Greg Hay...

__________________
never believe anything until it is officially denied . . .

And even if they did get Swann away, it would still have been better to play him, as an off-spinner is a different kind of challenge that a medium-pacer. Collingwood, Mascarenhas and Wright are all much of a muchness as bowlers, and having that extra bit of variety in their bowling lineup might have made a difference. In any case, I think one of the basic selectorial principals is that you always go in with a spinner, no matter what.

Come off it: Collingwood was appalling. The captain played one of his worst innings ever: pre-meditated slogs, agricultural hoicks and movement at the crease before the bowler had committed himself revealed desperation and a lack of confidence in his own abilities that should have seen the guy slaughtered - as Barry Richards has often said, getting away with an uncontrolled shot (and the shot being rewarded with runs) does not alter the fact that an uncontrolled shot is a **** shot.

Vettori should have been man of the match: he was awesome. Of the England batsmen... Bell towered over the rest, including Collingwood, because he consistently made the right call in terms of shot selection and executions -which deserves far more credit than merely "getting lucky" (which is all Collingwood did).